first, that's what that tweet from wikileaks says. heavily armed.
second, according to one comment below that tweet, cops in the UK rarely even carry a pistol, so everything larger than that can be considered
'heavily armed' there i guess.

Thanks for clarifying, I actually read that when I read the OP and the links included. My point is that the OP doesn't acknowledge the complete and
utter lack of context in the picture in any way, shape, or form, until it's been pointed out three pages in that the picture could be from a freaking
TV show for all we know.

UK's armed police are armed police. Nothing in that picture is out of the ordinary for what armed response units carry. I guess, being a non-Chicken
Little type of person, I don't see the point in calling somebody carrying their standard equipment "heavily" armed, as if they're covered in
bandoliers of ammo and dual-wielding 100 round-per-second death machines.

I used the heading of the wikileaks post. I thought that we were suppose to use the title of the source that we are linking to.
I'd say that those are heavily armed police given where those police are. I don't remember seeing the police carrying that type of armament in the
London area.

I made it clear in the first two posts in this thread that there was little news surrounding this.

As an Englishman I can clarify that seeing an officer carrying a gun is so rare that being reported as "heavily armed" isn't a surprise.
It's been a mad few days for Wikileaks, surprised we've still not heard anything from Assange - unless I've missed something?

If this was indeed also posted on Tuesday I find it odd for it to be tweeded again today. According to my feed it was 3 hrs ago too. This leads me to
believe something is going on with the wiki twitter account and it could be compromised.

Wondering if it is, if whomever compromised it may be trying to discredit wiki by posting false reports in order to be able to say all tweets are
unreliable. There is also the chance that, if compromised, the compromised could alter all past tweets and info.

Will keep an eye on their feed. I did notice early yesterday morning I had a notification of a new tweet from them then when I clicked on it there
wasn't one as if it was deleted. I don't recall them deleting tweets before...anyone else?

I'm trusting the Brits to keep an eye on this, on the ground reporting.
Wikileaks may have vetted the source of the photo before putting it up. Jullian is on his own at the embassy and wikileaks probably has to rely on
those folks closet to the embassy in order to keep us all updated.

London City Airport has reopened after emergency services said there was no evidence of a suspected chemical incident which had prompted the
evacuation of 500 passengers.

London Fire Brigade said "around 500 members of the public and staff have been evacuated and there are reports of a number of passengers feeling
unwell."

"Ambulance crews and our Hazardous Area Response Team are attending the incident at London City Airport," London Ambulance said in a statement. "We
have treated 26 people at the London City Airport incident. We have taken two patients to hospital."

Someone standing up and outside the vehicle took the photo. For some reason wikileaks did not post it the same day it happened, and that could be for
a number of different reasons. It probably took some time to submit the photo to wikileaks, they then vetted the source to make sure it was
legitimate.

there was that post at 4chan, but it's long 404, together with screenshots of it.

basically, someone claimed that there will be a false flag cyber attack to blame Russia.

then Hillary pulls 17 agencies out of her ass.

then this.

there were other claims in that 4chan post as well, that Hillary will win, but then - in december? - people will realize that the whole thing was
rigged and that in reality, Trump should be the president. i wish i had that damn screenshot.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.